Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 768 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 6/2006 – CE dt.1/3/2006 - It appeared to the department that appellants are not eligible for the notification, since the CPU without monitor does not constitute a machine namely ‘Computer’ to attract concessional rate of duty as per the notification - whether the appellants are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per the N/N. 6/2006-CE dt.1/3/2006 (Entry No.16), when they have not cleared the monitor alongwith CPU? - Held that:- Entry No.16 applies to goods falling under CTH 8471. When the goods fall under the said classification, the appellants come within the ambit of the eligibility / application of notification. Whether the goods fall within the description of ‘Computers’ as given in the Explanation in Column 3 of the Notification? - Held that:- It is very much clear from the explanation that even if the CPU is cleared separately or cleared with monitor, mouse and keyboard together as a set, the benefit of notification would be applicable. The word used in the Explanation is ‘includes’, the Hon.Apex Court in the case of Bharat Diagnostic Centre analysed the meaning of the word ‘include’ in Notification No.63/88, wherein it was held that the said word generally enlarges the meaning of words or phrases to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural import or as per common parlance, but also those things which interpretation or explanation clause declares that they shall include. In the present case, admittedly the goods fall under CTH 8471 and thus the appellants are eligible for benefit of notification. This being so, the benefit of exemption has to be then construed liberally. Even without such liberal interpretation, since the explanation uses the word ‘include’, it is very clear that although the CPU is not cleared alongwith the monitor, the goods would fall within the description of Computers as given in Column 3 of the Notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|